Case No. ZC19D00073

36.I have reached the conclusion that I should not permit the publication of my substantive judgment. I would have permitted the publication of a summary but for the fact that it will be overtaken by the publication of this judgment. 37.The factors that lead me this conclusion are as follows: i)The starting point, namely that these proceedings are conducted in private. ii)Although I have been critical, indeed at times very critical, of aspects of the presentation by H of his case, these are largely acts of omission rather than commission and apart from delay have not significantly affected the outcome of the proceedings. iii)This is not a case of H “getting away with it”. By order or agreement H has paid almost the entirety of W’s costs to the tune of some £1.8m. Despite hiccups along the way, that has all been paid. iv)Whilst a relevant matter, I do not consider that the fact that H has or has had (directly or indirectly) a share in the ownership of The Telegraph is in itself sufficient reason to dictate my decision. Leaving aside the issue of which members of the family were involved in the newspaper at the relevant times, I have heard no evidence as to whether or the extent to which the owners dictated or influenced the content of the paper. v)H is a public figure who should have been aware of the potential consequences of disobedience of court orders and his behaviour in the proceedings should not be allowed to pass completely under the radar. vi)The provision of this judgment properly and proportionately satisfies the public interest. 38.H’s nephews made submissions about the draft judgment which led to several minor alterations, but my conclusion has made it unnecessary for them to be further concerned. 39.The parties’ positions in respect of the continuation of the RRO were the opposite of what one might have expected. H argued that if the judgment was to be made public then, save as to his health issues, there was no reason why everything that was said in the hearing should not be made open whilst W’s position was that she wanted the RRO to remain in place and only the judgment to be made public. I do not need to go into the labyrinthine logic of these positions. 40.The RRO will remain in place and the extent of the publication will be limited to this judgment.